Reporters have a term for news stories that aren’t out of the ordinary: routine. The tag is to indicate that the story isn’t really ‘lead’ or ‘front-page’ material. This holds true for the crime beat as well – you’d be surprised the number of times a murder, robbery or even rape may be dubbed ‘routine’ within the cynical confines of a newsroom.

So, what makes a ‘routine’ crime story a ‘special’ crime story in a country that has recorded the second-highest number of homicides in the world and where crimes against women are reported every two minutes?

Often, it is the context within which a crime occurs and what it tells us about the world we inhabit. Which is perhaps why this incident of mob violence — a not-so-uncommon occurrence in Indian towns and cities — made it to our primetime TV, news pages and even trended on Twitter.

Three boys were stripped and thrashed in Rajasthan’s Chittorgarh district and quickly, this incident became more than just a ‘routine’ story because the boys are Dalit. The story started gaining traction on Twitter when Shoeb Khan, senior correspondent with The Times of India, tweeted that the perpetrators were “upper caste”. He later deleted the tweet.

Subsequent reports, like what Janta Ka Reporter wrote, focussed on this particular aspect of the case. Within a day, however, this was turned on its head when reports emerged that the men who had beaten the boys were not upper-caste. Mahim Pratap Singh, reporter with The Indian Express, tweeted this:

Singh’s report in The Indian Express stated that most of the accused belonged to either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe categories. This was why the police had refused to call it a “caste crime”, even as it charged the accused “under various sections of the IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act”. (The SC/ST Act would perhaps be applicable to the OBCs accused in the case.) The Hindustan Times reported that “the arrested suspects belong to Meena (ST) and Dhakad (OBC) communities.” Their report was also based on the police’s official version.

It was Rajasthan Patrika that provided more detail. It listed the names of both the arrested and accused. It noted that Gotu Meena, Rajmal, Ugamlal Meena, Shobhalal Dhakad, Madan and Nirbhayaram Dhakad have been arrested, while Ratanlal Khatik, Jagdeesh Salvi, Ratanlal Khatik, Pinku Jaat, Durgalal Khatik, Bhairulal Jaat, and Narayan Jaat have been registered by the police.

When Newslaundry contacted Sub Inspector Gaj Singh, Bassi Police Station, he confirmed the names mentioned in the news report and stated that the ones arrested belonged to the Meena Scheduled Tribe and Dhakar Other Backward Class. He added that of the accused, four belonged to the Khatik and Salvi Scheduled Castes. Singh also explained that the three boys were apprehended and attacked by the group on the suspicion of riding a stolen bike. When asked to share the FIR of the case, Singh declined to do so.

Given the fact that none of the accused and arrested were upper-caste men, how should we then frame the incident? For the community to which the three Dalit boys belonged, the thrashing and violence could pass of as a routine event. The Kanjar Dalit community is a nomadic ethnic group that was notified under the Criminal Tribes Act in 1871. It was denotified in 1952 but most Kanjars continue to carry the burden of being labelled “born criminals“. Indeed some of them do give into crime because their traditional occupation of conducting street shows and other entertainment aren’t sustainable livelihoods anymore and they haven’t been assimilated in the mainstream.

Bhanwar Meghwanshi, an activist with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Jaipur, says the Kanjar community has always been perceived as thieves because of their nomadic lifestyle and that they continue to live on the margins. “Atrocities on the people of this caste are common in Rajasthan,” he said. “Kanjars belong to the most depressed caste of the ones involved in the case. Also, while Khatiks, Dhakads, Meenas and Salvis may belong to weak tribes and castes, they often work on the lands of the upper caste and are therefore obliged to stand in support of them.” The stolen bike in this case belonged to an upper-caste Gujjar man.

When asked if he’d considered this a caste atrocity, Meghwanshi said it wasn’t certain what the motives were and how the crime had played out. However, he believed that it was because of the caste system that the three boys were treated so brutally. Would a Meena or a Dhakad have been beaten similarly on suspicions of theft? “No, never,” said Meghwanshi.

Kancha Ilaiah, author and director of the Centre for Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at Maulana Azad National Urdu University, believes this crime is very much a Dalit atrocity. He said, “What is important in this incident is that the bike belonged to [a] Gujjar… Because the owner is non-Dalit, it is a Dalit atrocity issue.”

Indeed, Meghwanshi and Ilaiah’s assertions point to the fact that you are only as empowered as the one above you in the hierarchy allows you to be. Till this remains ‘routine’, the media would do well to highlight and report on the plight of those who remain oppressed, parsing through the obvious to see the power dynamics at play even if the oppressor is not a Brahmin or a Rajput.

(With reporting inputs from Prerna Gupta)

The author can be contacted at manisha.pande1110@gmail.com and on Twitter @MnshaP